Agenda item

Mr M Hill, Cabinet Member for Communities, Ms A Honey, Managing Director Communities and Ms Claire Martin, Head of Supporting People, will attend the meeting between 11.15am and 12noon to answer Members’ questions on this item.

(Mr A Sandhu, MBE, Deputy Cabinet Member for Communities, Ms A Honey, Managing Director Communities, Ms A Slaven, Director Youth Services and KDAAT and Miss C Martin, Head of Supporting People were in attendance for this item to answer questions from Members of the Committee)

(1)   Mr Christie explained that this item had been called in following concerns that the overall Direction of Travel of the Supporting People Programme would lead to residential wardens being increasingly replaced by non residential and floating support for elderly and vulnerable people.

(2)   Ms Slaven explained that the Direction of Travel of the Supporting People Programme aimed to meet the needs of those significant vulnerable groups whose needs were not currently being met by the programme.

(3)   Miss Martin explained that there had been extensive consultation, there were significant pressures on some groups and the programme aimed to meet the needs of the most vulnerable groups.  There was a commitment to maintain scheme managers and wardens within category 2 housing (sheltered housing where scheme managers were present) and there was a commitment to fund alarms in category 1 housing.  However, some providers, such as Dartford Borough Council, Ashford Borough Council and Amicus Horizon, had provided the service through floating wardens, which worked well to provide 24hr cover, to cover sick and annual leave.  Home Improvement Services were considered sacrosanct and it was vital to ensure that the services which were being funded were meeting the needs of the vulnerable groups.

(4)   In response to a question from Mr Christie regarding the final decision maker for the system for service provision Miss Martin explained that the Council would consult with the service users, KCC administer the grants and there were a mixed economy of providers however if KCC wished to prevent the provider from removing residential wardens it could. 

(5)   The Chairman stated that in the past there had clearly been bad feeling from the residents, many of whom moved into sheltered accommodation on the understanding that there would be a residential warden, had this been tested in law?  Miss Martin explained that a test case went to the High Court and it was being tested in the Civil Courts.  Where Managers/Wardens had been removed some of the tenants had gone to court, however the courts were acknowledging the situation but not insisting that the wardens should be reinstated.

(6)   Mr Kite stated that it was Government Policy to move towards floating services, there had been a year on year reduction in funding whilst the client groups were expanding.  Occupants of the residential homes wanted stability more than anything else.  Mr Kite asked for confirmation that there had been a shift in funding and that the changes were guided by Government Policy.  Miss Martin explained that in Kent the funding had been managed to ensure that the level of funding had been maintained or increased.  Supporting people funding nationally had been reduced. 

(7)   Mr Horne concurred with Mr Kite in that stability was vitally important for residents in sheltered housing.  There was undoubtedly pressure to remove wardens and make changes to the regime, however Mr Horne asked for assurances regarding the policy for the warden schemes that were currently in place, were they safe?  What would happen in cases of retirement? Miss Martin explained that the Council was reliant on funding from the Government, assuming the funding continued the Council would expect providers to continue to provide services required by residents even after retirement. 

(8)   Miss Martin explained that there had been difficulties in recruiting to residential manager posts.  Mr Horne asked whether these difficulties had, in part, been due to the lack of certainty over the future of the posts.  Ms Honey explained that it was a question of how to ‘future proof’ the service, if the Government funding was to change the services would have to be re-prioritised, however there was no greater risk to the warden staff than any other staff in the Directorate.  In response to a further question from the Chairman about the reasons behind the recruitment problems Miss Martin explained that it was generally because the expectations on scheme managers were quite onerous, there was a perception from residents that they should be available 24/7, however in practice this was not the case.

(9)   Mr Brookbank asked about the timeline for consultation over future proposals and had some more specific questions about people with learning difficulties being placed in older people’s homes, these would be followed up with the relevant officers after the meeting.

(10)          Mr Hotson welcomed and supported the paper but asked for confirmation on whether the supporting people programme covered the armed services.  Miss Martin explained that funding supported the Royal British Legion; the programme recognised that single homeless people had less ability to access services and the programme would pick up on the needs of the armed forces. 

(11)          In response to a question from the Chairman about the timescale Ms Martin explained that there was an 18 month lead in time during which funding would be agreed and relevant planning permission would be sought.  There were a number of other services currently being funded such as the rough sleepers service which helped encourage rough sleepers into supported housing or into the private/public rented sector with floating support

RESOLVED that the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee:

(1)       Thank Mr A Sandhu, MBE, Ms A Honey, Ms A Slaven and Miss C Martin for attending the meeting and answering Members’ questions;

(2)       Ask that the relevant officer clarify in writing the Council’s position of preventing providers from removing residential wardens.